From Hero to Obscurity

Words often have many meanings. We hear hero we may each draw a different picture in our mind. It is the same with the term obscurity. Erase what you may be thinking for these are the synonyms I want you to accept, hero as celebrity and obscurity as inconspicuous.

This is the case with twelve men Jesus selected to be Apostles. Some stood out and today we might call them stars -- Peter, John, James. Others hovered in the background on the border of anonymity -- Simon Zealotes, Lebbaeus, James ben Alphaeus. The rest occasionally stepped to center stage and had their 15 minutes of fame, then retreated again into the background. One gained eternal infamy.

Of course, the "stars" we know quite a bit about. They are all over the Gospels and even wrote some books of their own. The "obscurity", not so much, which is why they are obscure. You can Google these fellows and maybe find a lot of verbiage about each, long entries in Wikipedia perhaps. But if you read carefully, as you should, somewhere in the articles will be the phrases, "According to tradition" or "the legends say".  For my purpose here I prefer to stay only with what the Gospels and Book of Acts tell us.

I just want to talk about Jesus' meeting these guys. So for the moment, let's settle back in our seats, with our popcorn and juju fruits and watch a film or two or three portraying the "calling". 

The scene begins with this Hippie-looking guy, long hair and beard flowing in the sea breeze, blue eyes reflecting the water, strolling down the beach. He is all sunshine and flowers. He looks over and sees several fisherman fooling around with their nets. He waves and calls out, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men!" The men immediately drop their gear, dash across the sand and off they go, a jolly band. 

Next scene, Jesus traipsing across a hill side in silhouette against the sun with twelve men single file ambling behind. 

Wow, that Jesus had some charisma! What did he do hypnotize those fishermen?

As usual the Hollywood take and the public perception of Biblical events is a wee off.

First of all, that calling by the Sea of Galilee only involved four of the twelve and it wasn't Jesus' first contact with them. (Read what really happened at "Jesus Calls His First Disciples" in Nitewrit's Own Companion and Commentary of the Gospels.) 


The four men Jesus called to follow him that day were two sets of brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew, and James and John. Three of these Jesus had met about a year earlier and he had probably spent a good deal of time with them over that period. John and Andrew were the two followers of John the Baptist, who had pointed Jesus out to them after Jesus came out of the wilderness. Andrew fetched his brother  Simon and they spent the rest of the day with Jesus. (Read John 1:35-51.)  James is never mentioned as being there, one of the few times in the Gospels where James and John aren't mentioned together. Perhaps James had stayed home to tend the business. Probably John filled him in when he got home and both brothers spoke with and traveled with Jesus during the coming year.

It was in Bethany at this same time that Jesus met Philip of Bethsaida and Nathanael Bartholomew of Cana. We do not know what Philip and Nathanael Bartholomew did for a living. Bartholomew is the Greek for the Aramaic "bar Tolomy", so his name was Nathanael son of Tolmay. Tolmay might have been his father's name. Tolmay also translates as "furrows; thus Bartholomew can be "son of the furrows", thus his occupation might have been farming. We know he was from Cana from later Scripture, after Christ's resurrection when Jesus meets five Apostles along the sea. These four are listed (John 21) as the two sons of Zebedee (James and John), Nathanael of Cana in Galilee and two others. One of the others is quickly revealed to be Simon Peter. The other is not identified. Perhaps it was Peter's brother Andrew or maybe it was Philip. Nathanael and Philip seemed to be close friends.

It is very likely these four men had traveled to Bethany together to be with John the Baptist. It is plain from the text they were seeking the Messiah, so they had a common purpose. This also indicates these were devout Jews who knew Scripture and prophesy. They knew the time was ripe for the appearance of the Messiah. Philip lived in Bethsaida and so did John and Peter. Nathanial lived not far away in Cana.

When these four (assuming James was not there with John) accompanied Jesus back to Galilee, their first stop was at a wedding in Cana. Some have even speculated this was the marriage of Nathanael, but that would not fit the wedding customs of those times. Most likely they went to the wedding because Jesus was invited. His mother was involved in it. It was convenient to leave Nathanael there in his home town.
(You can read the full story of these meetings and early travels with Jesus in my Companion.)

So, to recap, before this so-called calling of the Apostles, Jesus had already befriended and spent time teaching six of them: Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip and Nathaneal Bartholomew. On the day along the seashore when he said, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of me," it was to the first four in this group. These four are always listed first in the listings of the twelve, with Peter always at the top. We hear more about these four throughout the Gospels than any of the others, although not as much of Andrew as the other three. Even so, there are passages indicating Andrew was included is private conversations between Jesus and this group.

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?” Mark 13:3-4


Andrew may have been something of a gatekeeper at the top. He would interact between others.

The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. John 1:41-42

Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the festival. They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.” Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus. John 12:20-22

The second group that are always named together are Philip, Nathanael Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, with Philip always listed first. If the first group are the heros, the stars, these are those who get a scene or two in the limelight throughout the Gospels. Like the four stars, two of these fellows knew Jesus from the time he had been Baptized by John and returned from the wilderness. When Jesus actually called them to follow on his ministries, we do not know. It may not have been long after he called the first four off their boats.

The only other of the Apostles where we have information about him being met by Jesus and called is Matthew Levi. Jesus had come off a boat into Capernaum, where he was living then, he stopped by a paralyzed man and had a confrontation with some teachers of the law. After curing the man, Jesus went on into town and saw this tax collector at his collection booth. He called to this man to follow him and the man did. His name was Matthew (also Levi). Right after this Jesus has dinner at Matthew's home along with other tax collectors. Here he has a confrontation with the Pharisees over the company he keeps.

This is all we know about any of the "callings" of the Apostles.

The last member of this middle group is Thomas, known as Doubting Thomas to most and also known as Didymus, which is the Greek for Thomas. The name means "The Twin". We don't know if Thomas was actually a twin or not. We also don't know where Thomas was from, what he did for a living, where he met Jesus or how he was called.

The last group I haven't called The Obscurity for nothing. About all we know of these, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, is the names. They appear in the lists of the twelve, always with James son of Alphaeus listed first. We do not know when Jesus met or called these people.

It would seem it was in proximity of when he called the others. It is not that far into his first Galilean ministry when he calls them together and selects them as Apostles.

So you see, the calling of the Apostles is a bit more complex than usually presented in pop culture.  In fact, even the term of Apostle is misunderstood. First these men were disciples, along with perhaps many other people. A disciple is a student, someone learning from the teacher. When Jesus called Peter, Andrew, James and John to follow they did so as disciples. After some time went by, Jesus called a number of his disciples to a private place on a mount and there he select twelve to be Apostles. Although Apostles may continue being disciples, that is still learning, disciples aren't necessarily Apostles. Apostles are Messengers, people capable to taking the message to others and teaching others to be disciples. These men were called to be disciples, they were selected to be Apostles.

On the Road and In Your Face

Over the course of my life I have heard people talk about the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. Jehovah is the angry, condemning one and Jesus is the loving, forgiving one. They will say, "I can't believe in that mean old man pointing his finger and sending people to Hell, but I think Jesus was a good guy and he said we shouldn't judge anyone."

I'm afraid I have good news and bad news for these people. There is only one God and his nature doesn't change. Anyone who hasn't seen the loving, forgiving God of the Old Testament hasn't thought about what they've read. Those who haven't sometimes seen an angry and condemning Jesus haven't either. This is bad news because they are wrong about God; it's good news because He will forgive them if they realize it.

Jesus was not a flower child. He was not handing out happy pills and saying, "Can't we all just get along?" He did not say to the adulterous woman, who the Pharisees wished to stone, "Go and do what you please. Be happy." He didn't even say, "I forgive you." He said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:10-11 (KJV)

There is a difference between not condemning and forgiving. What Jesus says here is very interesting and maybe someday we'll take a closer look, but that isn't what this post is about. This post is about why these men brought this woman to Jesus. It was part of a long running confrontation between him and them. Jesus was a confrontationist from the beginning of his ministry and he continues to confront us today.

Let's look at Jesus beginning his earthly ministry and we will see what a confronter he is.

(If you want to see that what follows is Scriptural, you can read the New Testament account at Nitewrit's Own Harmony.  If you would like to read these events with more commentary about each, go to Nitewrit's Own Harmonized Commentary. Or just open your Bible on the table next to you.)

Let's also remember the definition of "confront": 1. to face; stand or meet face to face, 2. to face or oppose boldly, defiantly or antagonistically, 3. to bring face to face with, to confront someone with the facts or to set side by side to compare.

We discussed in the last two posts how Jesus confronted his parents. Now it is about 18 years later and he is about to start his mission in the world. He is approximately 30 years old and to the South there is a cousin baptizing people in the Jordan. This cousin named John has developed a following by this time and a certain amount of fame. Many people even wonder if this guy John is the predicted Messiah.

Jesus comes to John to be baptized and we have a confrontation between the two, granted a mild one. John argues that the roles should be reversed and Jesus should baptize him. But Jesus insists and so is baptized by John.

Immediately after his baptism, Jesus goes into the wilderness for forty days, where he has a pretty well-known confrontation with Satan. Notice this is not an argument between the two. Jesus doesn't get lured into some kind of "Who shot John?" thing. This is a confrontation of temptation with Satan offering all sorts of goodies and Jesus calmly refuting the offers by quoting Scripture, until the end, and then we see Jesus confronting Satan very boldly: "Get you hence behind me, Satan, for it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve'." Luke 4:13 (KJV)

Okay, we would expect confrontations between Jesus and the Devil, I suppose and Lucifer seems to had instigated the face-to-face here. But confrontations aren't defined by who starts it and Jesus certainly didn't back away and he showed his sense of authority.

While Jesus is away in the desert, John the Baptist has his own confrontation with the priests and Levites. This wasn't the first time John has had such things. Before Jesus was Baptized he had a bit of a dust up with the Pharisees,  But when he [John] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, he said unto them. “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

This time around these people begin questioning John about who he is, The Messiah, The Prophet or Elijah.

Why? Why were the Sadducees, Scribes, Pharisees, priests and Levites so interested in John?

I believe for a couple of reasons. They were looking for the promised Messiah and they were afraid of losing their positions and powers to Rome. The Jews were expecting the Messiah in those days. There had already been instances of individuals claiming to be the Christ. Some of these folk even had bands of followers and sometimes caused problems. The Jewish powers-who-be had to be concerned. The Sadducees, Herod, The Pharisees all maintained their positions at the grace of Caesar. As long as there was nothing to upset the status quo, Rome would leave them be to follow their own course. However if someone came along and led any kind of uprising, Rome would sweep down and crush it and perhaps crush all of Israel as well. Then what would they have? There were groups enough to worry about. There were Zealots, sort of terrorists if you will, and other gangs of Rebel-rousers. Certainly seeing someone like John the Baptist attracting large number of people would concern them. Still they had to be careful. What if this was the Messiah? They had to proceed with some caution. After all, their concept of Messiah was of a great warrior-king like David who would rise up an army and overthrow their oppressors, meaning Rome. They were somewhat between a rock and a hard place.

Then there comes Jesus back from the wilderness. John has told these fellows someone else greater than me is coming and now he points out Jesus to anybody nearby, saying, “Behold the Lamb of God!”

There were some unusual events on the day Jesus was Baptized. Thunder like voices in the sky, a dove descending on him and I'm sure gossip about these things had reached the ears of those powers-who-be. Jesus was not yet celebrity, but I imagine the authorities were noting him down in their book as a character of interest. He hadn't done anything to rile them yet, but I am sure somebody was saying to keep an eye on him.

Two followers of John the Baptist certainly were eyeing him. They heard John say this and they followed him. These two fellows were named John and Andrew.

Jesus confronted these two men. "What seek you?" It probably startled them and they asked where he lived. He told them to "Come and see."

Andrew brought his brother, Simon, to Jesus and Jesus immediately confronts Simon with a new name, Cephas or Peter, a stone. Note that Simon became Simon Peter even before Jesus began any ministry and well before his famous declaration of Jesus as the Son of God. 

The next day Jesus finds Philip to whom he says, "Follow me", and Philip in turn goes to Nathanael. When Jesus approaches Nathanael, he speaks first, confronting Nathanael with his knowledge of him.

Jesus and these few men now return to Galilee and their first stop is a wedding in Cana, where Jesus confronts his mother with this question, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? My hour is not yet come.”

Some time passes and now Jesus begins his ministry. He goes to the Passover in Jerusalem. What is the very first event of Jesus' earthy ministry? 

And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem and found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting. And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables. And said unto them that sold doves, “Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.”

Was this the Flower-Child so many paint Jesus as being? Or was this not the same sometimes angry God of the Old Testament? Jesus began his mission with a loud confrontation, a violent one, with a whip and tables crashing over; with people shouting and running and with the ones in authority watching.

Then he had a confrontation with those people in which he referred to what would occur three years or so hence. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Jesus began the confrontation with the ingrained holders of the Law and religion of the time and place. He would have many such confrontations with the Sadducees and Pharisees from then on. They would dog his footsteps and the thoughts of killing him began early on.

But while here, Jesus did some preaching to the people and performed some miracles and he attracted the attention of one of these Jewish Rulers, one Nichodemus.

And he had a face-to-face confrontation with Nichodemus challenging the man's true understanding of the Scriptures that the man had spent a lifetime studying.

After the Passover, Jesus sets up camp in Judea and begins Baptizing too. This causes, if not directly,  another confrontation between the Jews and the followers of John the Baptist about Jesus' activity.

Not long after, John the Baptist is arrested. Jesus now pulls up stakes and heads into Samaria, where Jews generally would not go. Jesus has caused a ruckus in Jerusalem. He certainly made enemies by what he did. They have kept their distance. But now John has been arrested and if it has come to a point in which authorities, whether Herod or otherwise, feel comfortable doing that to John, they quite well could feel it was safe to come after this guy Jesus.  He's gained some followers, but certainly hasn't yet become as popular as John was. Samaria is not where they would think to look for a Jew.

And in Samaria he has a confrontation with a woman at a well. I mean, she being a Samaritan and he being a Jew, it is even a confrontation to even speak to her and then he challenges her religious beliefs. Read the conversation he has with her. It is full of confrontation.

After Jesus has been through Samaria, he cures a Nobleman's child in Cana. The Nobleman is from Capernaum, I suggest you keep that in mind for future reference.

Now, Jesus goes to his home town of Nazareth, walks into the Synagog and confronts those there by reading Isaiah's prophesy of the Messiah and indicates he is the fulfillment. They don't like this. They try to kill him.

People don't like being confronted with the truth and Jesus was and is a great confrontationist.

Next: Band on the Run

Illustrations:  Jesus Curses the Pharisees by James Tissot, 1886-96

                      The Purification of the Temple by Jacopo Bassano, 1570

Confronting Some More About the Question at the Temple

I am going to spend a little more time discussing the question Mary asked Jesus. Here is the situation.

The family of Jesus had traveled to Jerusalem for Passover. Males were supposed to go there for certain Holy Days, although probably many skipped this requirement or sometimes went to some and not others. Passover was the one to which the majority went. We are told Joseph and Mary went every year.

It was an arduous trip. First, they lived in Nazareth and had to travel the 90 miles on foot; perhaps they had a donkey or an ox cart. Whatever, you couldn't hop in the family car and be up the freeway in a couple hours. It could be a dangerous journey as well, so people would usually travel in a caravan of family or friends and neighbors. It is obvious from the text that this was the case here, "Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends."

Such a journey was tiring and it had to be repeated going home after the festival. And the event itself was quite wearying. This was not like an outing to Church for an hour or so on Easter or Christmas. This went on for several days in a city that was turned into a constant carnival. The population doubled, tripled and people were everywhere, as were the compliment of vendors and entertainers and pickpockets. There were lines at the Temple for sacrifices, seders to attend, all kinds of hustle and bustle.

As many of us know, we often need a vacation from our vacation. This is especially true if we are attending some grand event, like Mardi Gras. I can completely understand how Joseph and Mary could have left their son behind. I mean, when packing up to leave people were tired and eager to be on the way. There was probably confusion and traffic jams of crowds as all the pilgrims departed. They were traveling with a trusted group, other family members. They set off thinking Jesus was somewhere in line with his cousins and aunts and uncles. They went a day before finding arrangements to spend a night and then discovered no one had seen the boy. These things happen.

So now they return and search for three days. Finally they find the lad in the temple with the teachers.

His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
   “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” Luke 2:48-49 (NIV)


In my last post, "Confrontationist", I only briefly passed this over as his parents having to confront who he was. I still think that was part of it, but not all, so what did he mean?


A problem arises for us because of the nature of translation. Different languages do not just substitute different words for the same thing. There may be words spelled the same with alternate meanings, such as, "The wind rustled the leaves" and "Did you wind the clock." There are words where they're spelled different, but while their pronunciation is the same, the meaning isn't. Add to this grammatical rules, slang, idiom and voice infection and you end up with signs like this in non-English speaking countries:

"English well talking. Here speeching American", signs on a Majorca shop entrance.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Sometimes one language has words that other language don't. Chinese does not have gender-distinct pronouns. In my last years at The Bank I had a Chinese supervisor (who has since returned to China). She and I worked well together as a team, but sometimes she would really confuse me about who she was talking about. "He say we need go to meeting and he say me should bring such and such." I would be lost because I had no idea who this "he" was. "Who said this?" "Him." "Him who?" "Mary say." 

Okay, then I would understand. Mary was our manager and to me was a she, but to Sherry was a he.

Translation can be tricky and I don't know Hebrew or Greek, which is why I use several Bibles. Here is a case in point where a translator's decision can make a difference in how we interpret a passage.

I quoted the passage from the New International Version (NIV) above, which is:

“Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”

The King James translators went with:

And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

The Wycliffe New Testament goes with:

And he said to them, What is it that ye sought me? knew ye not that in those things that be of my Father, it behooves me to be?

The word "not" ("didn't" in the NIV) is a Hebrew word that always means "not" or "no", but it is a word used only in questions where an affirmative answer is expected. It makes this sentence somewhat like a rhetorical question, except in a rhetorical question no answer is expected. Here, Jesus expects Mary and Joseph to answer, "Yes". 

Most of the other words are fine, although some alternate substitutions are available, such as "about" "must" and "behooves", which the NIV basically makes "had", the KIV uses "must" and Wycliffe went with "behooves". Or words translated I or me, which can be "I", "Me", "My".  The word translated "in" by both Wycliffe and the NIV is left out of the KJV. The word's only meaning is "in", but it is only used to denote in a fixed position (space, time, place). The final word means "father".

Here translators have added to that word for father something not there. The NIV adds "house" and the KJV adds "business" I think the Wycliffe comes closest in translation. It leaves "father" as just "Father".

That "business" business in the King James is what confuses us. Some take that question as implying Jesus should have been starting his ministry, but looking at the original and doing a straight up translation, I think we can look at it this way: "Perceive not that I it behooves to be in my Father?"

Where would he be in a fixed position at that time to be in the Father? Why in the Father's house, the Temple. What I think he is saying to Mary and Joseph, expecting them to agree, is, "Why did you spend so much time searching for me? You know me well enough, so why didn't you come to the temple first?"

We could also say, "Why are you searching for God in all the wrong places?"


There is quite a bit to be said about what came after this and someday we will come back to the last few sentences at the end of Luke 2, but for now we'll end here and next time pick up with "On the Road and In Your Face".


Yes, I know, I said that last time, but this time I mean it...I think.

Confrontationist

I don't know about you, but it seems I hear the word "confrontation" in the news more and more. Usually it is followed by descriptions or pictures of shouting people waving signs and sometimes fists. Anymore, it appears to go beyond just slogans, chants and threats. Everywhere about we have wars and rumors of wars.

In our daily working world there are individuals spoken of as being very confrontational and this implies a person always spoiling for a fight, argumentative to the extreme and generally unpleasant to deal with.

If you turn on the TV "news," any discussion of issues isn't a discussion at all, but a confrontation between two unbending opposites. This also tends to lead to name-calling and not much substance.  Many go here and there to increase knowledge, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. "Everyone is senseless and without knowledge; 
every goldsmith is shamed by his idols. 
The images he makes are a fraud; 
they have no breath in them. 
They are worthless, the objects of mockery; when their judgment comes, they will perish." Jeremiah 10:14-15

All in all, confrontation is described as a negative thing, somewhat akin to bullying, but very popular as entertainment. Confrontation appears to be the heart and soul of most so-called reality shows, which consist of getting a group of people together where they shout at each other a lot.

Now I am going to come here and tell you to look beyond the pop culture image of Jesus as a gentle, smiling understanding uncle, hugging a child or clutching a lamb tenderly to his breast, and softly intoning "Peace" and say see Jesus the Confrontationist.

Was Jesus the soft-focus flower child poster presented by Hollywood or is that simply what many wish him to be? Is it not easier to invent a savior who will always say, "Don't worry, be happy, I will accept you just as you are," a benevolent Mr. Rogers rather than a Savior who confronts us with ourselves and demands we, just maybe, need to rethink our lives?

What did Jesus say?  “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn -- ‘a man against his father, 
a daughter against her mother, 
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ [Refer to Micah 7] Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.” Matthew 10:34-39


I think Jesus was a confrontationist right from the beginning.


 Being confrontational is not necessary negative and doesn't have to imply that name-calling and fist waving are involved (although we might be surprised to find Jesus engaging in a bit of this). Here is the definition of confront:

1.           to face; stand or meet face to face

2.           to face or oppose boldly, defiantly, or antagonistically

3.           to bring face to face (with): to confront someone with the facts

Let's look and see if Jesus' methods met these definitions.

Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom. After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
   “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he was saying to them. Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. Luke 2:41-51

I am a parent. I am certain most parents understand Joseph and Mary's panic. Back when my children were children we went to Sesame Place in New Jersey. Laurel, my eldest was four and my youngest hadn't been born yet. The middle child was about six months old and in a stroller. At one point we separated for some reason; that is, my wife went one way and I another. We met up again perhaps fifteen minutes later and the first words out of my wife's mouth were, "Where's Laurel?"


My reply was, "I thought she was with you."


We rushed about, flitting along the paths we had taken, surrounded by hundreds of small children, searching, searching. We found her pretty much standing where we had parted and what a relief.


But imagine having traveled a great distance to a far city and on the return trip discovering you left your child behind? Joseph and Mary hadn't just walked fifteen minutes away within a confined park either; they had traveled for a day and were probably camping down for the night. They may have covered 20 or 30 miles by then. Just like us, they thought the boy was with other members of the family, now they discover he isn't there. They had to travel back to Jerusalem, now a day away, and try and find him in the big city. It is not altogether clear exactly how long they were separated. It says, "...they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him..." Did the three days include travel time or just the time they actively searched? It could have been five days or three; but whichever, it was a long time not knowing where the child was.


His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
   “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”


This is not a rebellious child sassing his parents. This was a serious question to parents who knew his origins. I think he was forcing them to confront exactly who he was.


 But they did not understand what he was saying to them. Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them.


They did not understand, but I bet they pondered it many times afterward.


But before Joseph and Mary located Jesus, what was going on in those three or so days? 


After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.


He was in the temple court with the teachers, Pharisees perhaps, or Scribes, questioning them and giving answers. The teachers were amazed when confronted with his understanding. It had begun.


We don't know anything about Jesus over the next approximate 18 years. Given that we know he never sinned, his very living must have confronted and confounded his neighbors. There must have been questions about someone so perfect, who probably didn't follow the expected course of tradition. When was this nice Jewish boy going to get a wife, have children and settle down like every other boy in town?  Then when most sons had long settled into just that lifestyle, at about age 30, he takes off to confront Jerusalem.


Next: On the Road and In Your face.

Illustration: This photo taken in 1954 most likely by Ronald Tipton show three bots horsing around.

I am not certain of the identity of the boy on the left anymore.

The boy in the middle is my longtime friend, Stuart and I am on the right.

Jesus in Hollywood

Hollywood likes to make films based on true stories. The optimal words here are "based on". Sometimes the part based on seems little more than a few names and a date. But whether the film is fairly accurate or more fantasy than fact, the unfortunate thing is many, many people's belief about history is what they saw on the silver screen. How many folks accepted that King Solomon had a torrid love affair with the Queen of Sheba, and that she was a woman come to destroy him to gain a port and in the employ of the Pharaoh of Egypt. King Vidor and his writers certainly had a different interpretation of 1 Kings 10:1-13 than I do. Go read it yourself and see if you can find anything I just described in the movie plot beyond the names of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.  It did give Vidor an excuse to put Gina Lollobrigida in skimpy costumes and Yul Brynner in hair (one of his rare appearance not as a baldy).

Here, of course, is another problem since Hollywood has often turned to The Bible for their "based on" true stories. Although one would think The Good Book contains all the intrigue, crime, lust and murder a scriptwriter could handle, they always seem to add a little more on their own; sometimes a lot more. As with the aforementioned Lollobrigida's belly dancer interpretation of the Queen of Sheba, Hollywood always finds some sleaze or sex to throw in the mix, the orgy scene in "The Ten Commandments" or Salome's salacious dance in "King of Kings." Even with John Huston's epic, "The Bible," a classic misnomer of a movie, since it only touched on some of the stories found in Genesis, this was so. Much of the hype and publicity surrounding that film centered around the actors playing Adam and Eve performing in the buff or the altogether or naked.

Speaking of "King of Kings", here we have a case where our perceptions of Christ have too often been impressed upon us by popular media, even going back to the paintings of the Renaissance. Jeffrey Hunter has the image of the Renaissance's blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus entwined with the aura of a Hippie guru. At least, that was the impression I got watching the "Sermon on the Mount" scene. (Perhaps I should say he was a kind of "On the Road" guru, given the movie was made in 1961, landing in the transition from the Beats to the Hipps.) At any rate, it seems I've seen Jesus presented too often in soft-focus lighting where you expect him to sing, If you're coming to Jerusalem be sure to wear flowers in your hair.

All of this imagery becomes easily ingrained in us and we have a hard time letting go. Even when someone makes a movie and tries to be accurate in detail, in showing the times as they were and uses actors who look like they belong in the setting, they can't resist popular notions that distort the reality. Take for instance the film, "The Nativity Story". This is a very beautiful movie and it places you right into the emotions Joseph and Mary must have felt, but even these producers couldn't resist popular Hallmark Card tableaus over scripture. They did the old familiar manger scene with sheep and shepherds, camels and Three Wise Men all gathered together, just like the creche sitting on the mantle at Christmas, but hardly found in scripture.

Even we Christians who spend much time in The Bible often fall into this trap. After all, not only do cliches ingrain themselves in our psyches, but familiarity often blinds us from the details.  In other words, we sometimes can't see the forest for the trees and other times we can't see the trees for the forest. Sometimes we need to just stop, step back and see what else is going on in both the forest and the trees.

Over at Tamela's Place she did a post recently titled, "Who Do You Say I Am?"  She is talking about seeing things through spiritual eyes and there is an interesting quote:  "I might add that there is a lot out there that needs a spiritual filter as to sift through the garbage though".


I think I am going to do a little sifting over a couple or so posts. Perhaps not totally with "spiritual eyes", but at least without the visions drummed into me by the Magic of Hollywood and the splendor of

.

Let the following verses be a tease and next time, "A Christ of Confrontation".


Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom. After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
   “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he was saying to them. Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. Luke 2:41-51

If the End Were Near: A Variation on a Peter Pollock Post

In a recent post at Peter Pollock. com  he began by asking a particular question: "If you knew for absolutely certain that Christ was coming again this time tomorrow, what would you do?"

There will be no Spoiler Alert. If you want to know what his answer was to the question you will have to click on the link and read it yourself.

The question that came to my mind on reading his post was this: Would you want to know for certain that Christ was coming again this time tomorrow?


For most Christians I would imagine the first knee-jerk reaction is, "Yes!"

I'm not certain that is the best answer. Jesus said no one knew when that moment would be, not even the Angels, and it would come in a blink of the eye. God must have had a reason why this would not be known ahead of it happening. Now the Bible indicates that God is a patience Deity who doesn't want to see anyone perish and he delays until the last possible soul has been redeemed. But the idea the date isn't known to us because God keeps putting it off for that reason doesn't make sense. God already knows who that soul is and when they will be saved. So what difference would it make to know the date?


It doesn't seem it is the need for something to be in place to make the fulfillment of some End Time prophesy possible either. You know, like satellites and the internet and television and all the things that would allow the world to see an event when it happens. Or super computers that would let some central government to control all our affairs. As far as I know everything is in place that would allow the very last days to begin. But even if there was something else, God knows what it is and when it will be invented. Why not tell us the date?


God knows us much better than we know ourselves of course. Maybe it is for our sake we aren't told the exact date. We probably wouldn't react sensibly at all and probably not at all as The Lord has told us to.


And who all would know this exact time with certainty, everybody or just true believers? There was a movie back in the early 1950s called "The Next Voice You hear". It starred James Whitmore and Nancy Davis (later Nancy Reagan). In this film a voice claiming to be God is suddenly heard on everybody's radio each evening for six days. The movie is about the effect this had on the characters' lives. 


If something like that happened, with God suddenly declaring on the radio or TV that in 24 hours The Lord would return I expect the reaction would be similar to some of the fictional movie. Many people would think it a hoax, some would take it seriously and the government would launch an investigation. But I'm not so sure it would change much. People always say why doesn't God just speak up and then we'll believe. You know if God did, people still wouldn't believe in him. After all, he did that once and look what happened.


Perhaps the message would just come to the believers. What if Saturday evening you went to sleep and sometime in the night you had a dream. In the dream an Angel appears and says, "Fear not and rest assured, for I am Gabriel, a messenger from God and I am announcing that Our Lord will return at 9:00 AM Monday morning." 

When you awake in the morning you remember this dream vividly. You come down to breakfast and tell it to your spouse and your spouse says, "I had the exact same dream. Hmm, interesting coincidence." So you go off to church. The service is about to start, but instead of the usual beginning your Pastor steps to the podium looking very serious. He tells you he had this dream, your dream, and that he called the minister of such-and-such church and that man had the same dream and he tells the dream. And then many people about you, not all, but most are nodding their heads that they also had that dream.  (As an aside, given the dress of the family in this picture, the Rapture must have occurred in the early 1950s.)


Now what? Do you all form groups and swarm into the neighborhood to knock on doors and warn those who aren't in any church that they must repent? Why not, a lot of people think we Christians are nuts anyway so this won't hurt? It probably won't do much good either. 


Or do you sort of panic yourself. Am I sure about my own salvation? Am I ready? Have I done enough? Am I really ready to give up all this stuff I have here on earth? It is always easier to say we are ready and we want the Lord to come soon than to know it is actually about to happen.


It is also easy to say we know he could come at any moment that He could come before I type another




                                    word.

I don't doubt we are honest when we say we expect the Lord to return at any moment, I just wonder if we would really grasp the reality if we knew it was upon us slightly ahead of time. You know, like we expect to die someday. We know we could die at any minute. But do we grasp that reality? We could get in our car, head for work and get killed by some aggressive driver on the interstate. How much to we actually consider such a thing? Probably about as much as you really consider that Christ could return in the next moment. As much as we accept the truth we could die at any moment, I don't think many of us expect to die today. As much as we accept the truth of the prophecy, I don't think many of us expect Christ to come today. We say at any moment, but in our mind we always see it somewhere in the future.


I actually think God designed it that way.

If you were given absolute proof that it would happen twenty-four hours from now you would probably be overwhelmed with anxiety, guilt and sorrow. You would think of those you know and those you love that don't believe. People close to you who are not saved. You will probably realize there is little that can be done in one day. You will feel guilty because you will feel you never did enough to save them or others, that you did too much during your life for yourself and not enough for others, even if you did a lot for others. You will feel great sorrow for these people and terrible because you let them down. You'll begin to take a burden on to yourself that isn't yours to bear.


It other words, it is better not to know the exact date and time. I think God has spared us that anxiety.

Of course there are some people who believe they do know the exact date. They put up billboards even announcing it. Some think it was all foreseen in the Long Count Calendar used by the Mayans and some think they have unwoven exact timelines within the Bible. We will see how close they come in the not so distant future. At least we will if the Lord doesn't come tomorrow or next week or at a moment we least expect him. Remember those key words from His own lips, "When you do not expect Him."


My personal opinion is if we claim we know the exact date we are calling The Lord a liar.


I pray I am always alert and watching, but I still prefer I not know exactly.

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

   “Be on guard! Be alert! Therefore keep watch, because you do not know when that time on what day your Lord will come. It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. Matthew 24:36-44 and Mark 13:32-37 (NIV)